The news that an outbreak of swine flu in Mexico has now moved to the United States is the latest test case for the efficacy of our 24-news channels. On the one hand, we really don't seem to know a whole lot, either about the initial outbreak (other than it seems to have occurred in Mexico) or that there are differences between the Mexican and American strains (at least, differences in virulence; read this New York Times article to see the host of questions raised by this outbreak).
It certainly seems some folks are losing their grip; a Congressman has called for closing the US-Mexico border, although this is most definitely a case of the barn door being pushed shut long after the horses are not only out, but in the back forty.
The larger issue here is the tension between getting the story (and, obviously, getting it right) and the duty not to create a panic by hyping beyond the facts. It should be obvious that even if we are facing a dangerous pandemic, we are in the very early stages of such a creature. My guess, if it's worth anything at all, is that this outbreak has been discovered early enough to keep it from reaching true pandemic proportions. Yet, as the story unfolds, we should keep an eye on how the media deal with this issue. Whether it's the border with Mexico, or various offered measures for containing the outbreak - if such are even needed - it seems that facing the threat of a serious flu pandemic is far more of a challenge than facing the actual thing. Were we in the midst of a true pandemic, the challenges would be different. Right now, it seems far more important not to run ahead of the facts, and the response.
How soon before we have all sorts of news channel chyrons on "The Great Flu Outbreak" or what have you?
